Montserrat

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will support the modifications of Montserrat's airstrip so that it meets the regional civil aviation authority's regulations requiring a minimum of 600 metres for the safe normal operation of Twin Otter aircraft.

Baroness Amos: The requirements of the Directorate of Civil Aviation for the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States were clarified at a meeting in Antigua earlier this month. The Government of Montserrat's project consultants have been asked to modify their designs accordingly.

Montserrat

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further ministerial meetings are planned with the Government of Montserrat to discuss the progress of their airport project.

Baroness Amos: The progress of the proposed airport development was discussed when Montserrat's Chief Minister called on the DfID Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 10 July.
	There are no further ministerial meetings currently planned.

Limitation of Actions

Baroness Billingham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any decision has been taken on the recommendations contained in Law Commission Report No 270, Limitation of Actions.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The Government accept in principle the Law Commission's recommendations on limitation of actions, subject to further consideration of certain aspects of its report, and will legislate when a suitable opportunity arises.

Government Publication Schemes

Baroness Wilkins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan to publish any guidance on publication schemes under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for central government and non-departmental public bodies.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question. I am pleased to inform your Lordships' House that I have today published guidance for central government and non-departmental public bodies on publication schemes under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the House Library.

Railway Activity in Scotland

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which aspects of railway activity are devolved, by any means, in Scotland; and
	Which aspects of railway activity in Scotland are reserved matters.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Head E.2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 defines the following as reserved railway activities affecting Scotland: provision and regulation of railway services; rail transport security, including the on-railways activities of the British Transport Police; the subject matter of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987; and the subject matter of the Railway Heritage Act 1996; with exceptions to the above as follows:
	Grants so far as relating to railway services; but this exception does not apply in relation to:
	(a) the subject matter of Section 63 of the Railways Act 1993 (government financial assistance where railway administration orders made);
	(b) "railway services" as defined in Section 82(1)(b) of the Railways Act 1993 (carriage of goods by railway); or
	(c) the subject matter of Section 136 of the Railways Act 1993 (grants and subsidies).
	Interpretation of "railway services" has the meaning given by Section 82 of the Railways Act 1993 (excluding the wider meaning of "railway" given by Section 81(2) of that Act).
	By virtue of the terms of the Scotland Act, all other matters relating to railway activities in or affecting Scotland are devolved. In addition, the following are devolved by virtue of orders made under the Scotland Act: administration of freight facilities and freight track access grants within Scotland; appointment of chairman of Rail Passengers Council (RPC) for Scotland and the tabling of the reports of the RPC before the Scottish Parliament; directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority for Scottish passenger services, directions and guidance for Scottish sleeper services, and advice to the Strategic Rail Authority for cross Border services; legislative competence over the rail responsibilities of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive/Authority and any new such bodies; transfer of funding for the ScotRail franchise; legislative competence over the promotion and construction of new railways in Scotland; and local transport strategies.

Northern Ireland: Air Travel

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the importance to Northern Ireland of air travel, whether they will consider removing taxation on travel to the mainland as they have done on travel from mainland Scotland to the Western Isles.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are no such plans. The exemption from air passenger duty for flights from airports in the Scottish Highlands and Islands was introduced in recognition of the importance of air transport given the low density of population in the region. Population density in Northern Ireland is greater.

Businesses: Tax Affairs and Redress of Grievance

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the procedure for redress for those wrongly accused by HM Customs and Excise of non-compliance in their obligation to file accurate documentation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Any business that believes it has been wrongly treated by Customs and Excise should follow the procedures set out in its code of practice Complaints and putting things right (Notice 1000), which is available on its website or through its national advice service. The code of practice includes arrangements for providing redress when a mistake has been made in dealing with a business's tax affairs.

Single Currency

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on the 24 June 1999 (HL Deb, col. 1063) that "any country which chooses to enter EMU does so on the basis that it is an irrevocable step" and "The treaty contains no legal basis for a member state withdrawing from EMU", whether this conflicts with the constitutional principle, set out by Dicey and others, "that one Parliament cannot bind its successor"; and, if not, why not.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer of 1 July 2002 (WA 7).

Road Fuel Duty

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the level of fuel duty rebate in price per litre equivalent for LPG (liquid petroleum gas); CNG (compressed natural gas); LNG (liquid natural gas); biodiesel; and bioethanol; and
	What steps they are taking to evaluate the relative environmental and economic merits of biofuels and road gas fuels in relation to current fuel duty rebates.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The current duty rates are 9p. per kilogram for gas used as road fuel (including liquefied petroleum gas, compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas). Biodiesel and bioethanol are currently taxed at the rate of 45.82p. per litre but we shall shortly be introducing a new, lower rate of duty on biodiesel of 25.82p. per litre. We have also given a commitment that duty on road fuel gases will be frozen in real terms until at least 2004.
	Taxation of road fuel, including biofuels and road fuel gases, is reviewed Budget by Budget. In making his judgement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into account a range of economic, social and environmental factors.

Women in the Criminal Justice System

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the reply by Lord Filkin on 30 May (HL Deb, col 1490), whether they have succeeded in speeding up consideration of a criminal justice board for women as proposed by the Lord Chief Justice.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As my noble friend Lord Filkin has previously indicated, the new Correctional Services Board may consider this proposal. The Correctional Services Board will set the overarching strategy for the correctional services, monitor performance, review allocation of resources and encourage joint working.
	The initial focus of the board is likely to be on improving services in relation to 18 to 20 year-olds, with a view to expanding this focus to other groups, which could include women. However, we have no plans at present to establish a separate board with specific responsibility for women.

Forensic Science Service

Lord Gregson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to lay before Parliament the annual report for the Forensic Science Service.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) annual report and accounts for 2001–02 have today been laid before Parliament.
	Performance against agency targets 2001–02:
	The FSS met seven of its 10 targets and concluded the financial year with a strong performance.
	Financial targets:
	A 12.9 per cent return on capital employed was produced against a target of 10 per cent.
	A three-year rolling efficiency gain of 10 per cent was achieved against a target of 10 per cent.
	Service delivery:
	An average turnaround time of 35 days was achieved against a target of 26 days.
	Ninety-four per cent, 92 per cent and 90 per cent of agreed dates were achieved in urgent, critical and persistent young offender cases (respectively) against targets of 97 per cent, 97 per cent and 100 per cent.
	Eighty-nine per cent of agreed delivery dates in all categories were achieved against a target of 93 per cent.
	Service level agreements were put into place with 92 per cent of police forces, against a target of 90 per cent.
	A biennial customer satisfaction survey was conducted.
	A baseline overall measure for putting into place routine and robust customer satisfaction measurement processes based on transactional approach and for demonstrating year-on-year improvements in police (customer) satisfaction was established.
	External quality accreditation to ISO standards was maintained, and extended.
	Application for 50 per cent of reporting officers for accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, were appropriate was achieved.
	The targets for 2002–03, the agency's fourth year of trading fund, are:
	Finance:
	Target: a 10 per cent return on captial employed.
	Target: a 10 per cent efficiency gain (over three years).
	Service delivery:
	Target: a 5 per cent increase in transactional index of customer satisfaction (baseline 100 per cent).
	Target: agreements on service levels implemented with 92 per cent of police forces.
	Target: maintain quality accreditation.
	Target: meet dispatch dates in 98 per cent of urgent and critical cases and 99 per cent in persistent young offenders cases.
	Target: meet dispatch dates in 93 per cent of all categories of cases.
	Target: achieve a 70 calendar day turnaround time in 90 per cent of standard jobs (violent and volume crime cases) by the year end, demonstrating improvements through the year.
	Target: submit applications for accreditation to the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) of 100 per cent of reporting officers in areas where the CRFP is registering people. lynne

Child Protection on the Internet

Lord Tomlinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many times the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet has met since it was set up last year and what progress has been made.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) announced the establishment of the Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet on 9 May 2001. Since then, the full task force has met four times and most recently on 3 July 2002. The work of the task force has been taken forward by a number of sub-groups which have met regularly and have been looking at the criminal law, law enforcement, child protection measures, public awareness, training and further developing co-operation between the industry and others on reporting and handling child protection issues.
	Members of the respective sub-groups have given freely of their time to support the aim we set last year: to make the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world for children to use the Internet, and to help protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies.
	The task force has developed, run and now evaluated a successful national awareness campaign. Research had confirmed two key gaps: first, that parents are ill-informed about their children's use of the Internet and chat rooms; and, secondly, that young people give out their personal details without considering the consequences. Two campaigns were designed, one to target 14–16 year-olds and the other parents/carers of 11–13 year-olds. The media used included press advertising, cinema, radio, on-line and viral marketing from December 2001 until spring 2002. Independent evaluation of the campaigns shows significantly improved awarenss of the key messages in both target audiences. The task force is now considering that evaluation and how to build on the momentum created.
	The task force has also developed proposals for a criminal offence to tackle the "grooming" of children by paedophiles online or offline. This is intended to allow prosecution at an early stage when children are being groomed, before an existing sexual offence has been committed. In addition, the proposals include the creation of a new civil protection order relating to behaviour towards a child for an illegal or harmful sexual purpose.
	Practical online child protection measures have been drawn up in a draft good practice document for service providers which deals with chat, instant messaging and web services. These encourge, among other things, clear and accessible safety messages and advice and user-friendy ways of reporting abuse. The drafts are being considered by the wider industry through the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX).
	Work is also in hand to develop a shared matrix for reporting and handling child protection issues and developing good practice for dealing with law enforcement requests for information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This is being taken forward, with the oversight of the task force, by the Internet Crime Forum.
	The task force will continue to work in partnership with the industry to consider the extent to which the criminal law currently covers unsuitable material being sent to children and all the forms of indecent representations of children; assess the new challenges posed by development of 3G mobile phones; and develop basic training materials for child protection staff on children's Internet use.
	In parallel with the task force, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in the development of a G8 strategy for protecting children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. The strategy, which is not yet finalised, will cover issues such as victim identification; intelligence gathering and sharing; location of suspects; enforcement tools and training; awareness building and prevention; and police working with industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Dome Site: Decontamination

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether British Gas has decontaminated the site of the Millennium Dome and its surroundings for both commercial and residential use.

Lord Rooker: Remediation of the dome site and its surroundings was carried out in stages. British Gas, the original landowner, carried out the statutory remediation, removing all substances which could be a danger or harmful to health. The second phase was carried out by English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, to make the site fit for known planned developments.
	Both British Gas and English Partnerships employed WS Atkins as their remediation consultants, which secured the agreement of the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Department of the London Borough of Greenwich to the remediation solutions which were carried out on site.
	The whole of the 300-acre Greenwich peninsula site now owned by English Partnerships has been remediated fit for its purpose. Any further remediation will depend upon the final use to which the land is to be put and will relate to the form of construction used.

AONBs: Sporting Arena Applications

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Since the publication of the Countryside Commission's Protecting our Finest Countryside: Advice to Government in 1998, whether there have been any applications for major sporting arenas in the South Downs or any other area of outstanding natural beauty; if so, whether they have been called in; and what has been the outcome in each case.

Lord Rooker: There has been one planning application for a major sporting arena within the South Downs, by Brighton Hove Albion Football Club for a community stadium on land north of Village Way, Brighton. Brighton and Hove City Council has resolved to grant planning permission. The application has been referred to the Deputy Prime Minister as a departure from the development plan. The Deputy Prime Minister will consider whether he wishes to call in the application for his own determination. Information on planning applications within all areas of outstanding natural beauty is not held centrally by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Leasehold

Lord Jacobs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Lord Falconer of Thoroton at the Labour Party conference in September 2001 that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill was the result of a bargain between the interested parties, whether they can identify any leaseholder or leasehold representative organisation which is aware that they have struck a bargain in this Act with the Government or with any landlord representative.

Lord Rooker: In taking forward their proposals for leasehold reform, the Government always made it clear that they were seeking to strike a fair balance between the legitimate interests of landlords, leaseholders and other parties with an interest in the leasehold system. Both leaseholders and leaseholder representative organisations should, therefore, be fully aware that the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 reflect the legitimate interests of landlords as well as those of leaseholders. For further information on the extensive consultation which took place, I would refer the noble Lord to the responses previously given by the Lord Chancellor on 26 March (WA 31) and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 24 April (WA 31–32) and 13 May (WA 6).

Planning Green Paper

Baroness Hanham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many respondents to the Planning Green Paper consultation were against the abolition of the county council's role in the preparation of structure plans; and whether they will now either review or drop these proposals.

Lord Rooker: The standard response form to the Planning Green Paper included the question, "We are proposing to simplify the hierarchy of plans by strengthening regional planning and abolishing country structure plans. Do you agree?". Of those respondents using the form, 90 per cent answered no. However, in the detailed comments on this question, on 23 per cent said that they wanted to keep/retain county (structure) plans. We hope to make a statement in response to the Green Paper consultation shortly.

Planning Green Paper

Baroness Hanham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will make public a full analysis of the results of the consultation on the Planning Green Paper.

Lord Rooker: The analysis by Messrs Smith and Williamson of the 10,417 detailed responses made on the standard form was placed in the House Library on 27 May and is on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. It was not possible to analyse those responses not using the standard form, many of which were more detailed, in the same way. However, those responses have been considered fully and will inform the Government's thinking in taking forward the proposals.

Anschutz Entertainment Group

Viscount Astor: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What damage could be done to Anschutz Entertainment Group by revealing the priority return due to the company from English Partnerships with regard to the Millennium Dome.

Lord Rooker: It is common practice in commercial agreements of this nature for the parties to agree to maintain commercial confidentiality. Were details of the commercial arrangements to be revealed, this could compromise Anschutz Entertainment Group's negotiations with potential dome users or occupiers and any negotiations conducted by Anschutz Entertainment Group for the delivery of similar facilities elsewhere.
	Revealing details of the commercial agreement could also affect English Partnerships' ability to secure value for money for the public purse in their ongoing negotiations with third parties on the Greenwich peninsula and in negotiations on other regeneration projects.

Military Air Transport Emissions

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the air transport industry on 14 January (HL Deb, col. 825) whether they have set targets for the reduction of emissions from military air transport; and, if so, what they are.

Lord Bach: No targets have been set for the reduction in emissions from military air transport.

Military Air Transport Emissions

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will answer the Question for Written Answer on targets for the reduction of emissions from military air transport tabled by Baroness Byford on 7 February.

Lord Bach: I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, today.

EOC: Expenditure on Law Enforcement

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of the annual expenditure of the Equal Opportunities Commission was spent on law enforcement over the last five years for which records are available.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The annual expenditure of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) on law enforcement for the last five years, including advice and support to individual cases and lobbying campaigns on legal matters for which records are available, is as follows:
	1998–99: £1,406,649
	1999–00: £1,439,848
	2000–01: £1,559,044
	2001–02: £1,353,559
	2002–03: £1,218,115
	Details of the commission's expenditure are publicly available from the commission.

Agricultural Grants

The Earl of Caithness: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Whitty on 19 June (WA 89), for each £1 of grant or subsidy made, what percentage is due to the administrative costs.

Lord Whitty: In approximate terms and taking an average across all agricultural grants and subsidies, for each £1 of grant and subsidy made 7 per cent is due to the administrative costs.

Defra Office, Worcester

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs office at Worcester has resumed normal working; and what is the current backlog of bovine tuberculosis tests waiting to be assessed.

Lord Whitty: The Rural Development Service and the State Veterinary Service are now all established at Worcester. In addition, some post-foot and mouth disease work continues on site, utilising additional staff to those required for routine operations.
	At the end of May 2002, there was a GB backlog of 20,030 overdue bovine tuberculosis tests (down from 27,000 at the end of 2001). The figure for Hereford and Worcester Animal Health Office was 408.
	WA20-30

Genetically Modified Seeds

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many hearings have taken place under the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 into the listing of genetically modified seeds varieties.

Lord Whitty: To date there has been only one hearing on the proposed addition of a genetically modified variety to the national list, relating to the maize variety Chardon LL. That hearing concluded on 13 June 2002.

Pesticides Safety Directorate

Baroness Hayman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets they have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate for 2002–03.

Lord Whitty: We have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate the following performance targets for 2002–03.
	Quality of Service
	To complete evaluations and contribute to the EC Review Programme under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, according to the processing times set out in Table 1 below.
	1. To deliver high quality scientific work to underpin the protection of human health and the environment.
	2. To provide clear and accessible public information about pesticide issues consistent with sustainable and economic production.
	3. To ensure the UK's objectives are reflected in the revised Council Directive 91/414/EEC and to maintain our international reputation as a leading regulatory authority.
	Efficiency
	1. To implement a quality system by the end of December 2002 that enables an improvement in quality and efficiency and which takes account of priorities identified in the 2001 customer satisfaction survey.
	2. To deliver 3 per cent efficiency savings through the combination of achieving reductions to processing times for applications for approval and through savings in cost of outputs.
	Financial Performance
	1. To recover from Industry and government the full economic cost (as calculated according to resource accounting principles) of its services.
	
		Table 1 Approvals Group: predicted workflow and target processing times for 2002–03
		
			  Estimated workflow Target processing time (weeks) 
			 Application type 2002–03 2002–03 2001–02 
			 UK Reviews 
			 Anticholinesterase programme 5 — — 
			 Other activity 3 — — 
			 EC Reviews Rapporteur (2nd stage) 
			 Completeness 10 26 N/A 
			 Evaluation 4 52 N/A 
			 New Active Substances Sift 8 5 6 
			 Full 8 42 48 
			 Evaluation 
			  Resubmisison 3 42 48 
			 Departmentals 8 42 45 
			 Re-registration 4 40 — 
			 Normals 135 30 35 
			 Associated fast-normals 25 30 35 
			 Assessed experimental approval 2 20 20 
			 Extrapolated experimental approval 2 10 10 
			 Emergency off label 15 9 10 
			 Non-emergency off label 30 25 30 
			 Mutual recognition 3 20 20 
			 Fast 200 10 10 
			 Parallel imports 50 9 10 
			 Administrative fast 700 4 4 
			 Administrative experimental 100 1 1 
			 Simplified own-use parallel 10 2 2 
		
	
	*Overall target—90 per cent of applications with a stated processing time must be completed within that time.

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What targets were set for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science for 2002–03

Lord Whitty: We have set the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science the following performance targets for 2002–03. Quality of Service
	To make satisfactory progress with the action plan resulting from the 1999–2000 science audit.
	To manage the agency in an effective manner, including pursuit of commerical exploitation of research outputs. Efficiency
	To give satisfaction to customers in the way that outputs are provided, as measured by the CEFAS customer satisfaction survey.
	To achieve savings and efficiency gains in a range of key functions. Financial Performance
	To recover from government departments and agencies and external customers the full economic costs of the agency's services.

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the 2001–02 annual report for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

Lord Whitty: The 2001–02 annual report and accounts for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

Infectious Diseases in Livestock

Baroness Nicol: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have received the report of the Royal Society's Scientific Review of Infectious Diseases in Livestock.

Lord Whitty: We are delighted that the Royal Society has today published the report of its independent Scientific Review of Infectious Diseases in Livestock. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
	This report was commissioned by the Government following the unprecedented outbreak of foot and mouth disease last year. We are very grateful to Professor Sir Brian Follett and his committee for producing such a thorough and excellent report in such a short space of time. This is a very significant contribution to our work to strengthen our ability to guard against and deal with animal disease.
	We welcome the importance that the report places on the livestock industry in this country and Great Britain having animal disease free status. We are already taking action on imports and disease surveillance to protect this and the report's views on these matters will be of great assistance.
	More widely, we intend to press ahead with an animal health and welfare strategy and will need to consider carefully the recommendations made by the report on research and development in the light of yesterday's spending review announcement.
	The report's recommendations will be of crucial importance in developing the Government's emergency preparedness for controlling animal diseases, and we will need to study these closely, in particular the recommended approach to vaccination against foot and mouth disease. The Government have never rejected vaccination as an option in the fight against foot and mouth. The report recognises that there are aspects of vaccination, in particular trade and technical issues, which are not yet resolved but which can and should be resolved. Even then, vaccination will not necessarily be a panacea and will not necessarily be right in all circumstances. The report notes that, even with emergency vaccination in place, culling would still be necessary.
	We welcome the Royal Society's endorsement of the need to take forward the work we have in hand on greatly improved contingency plan for foot and mouth. Its findings on biosecurity and animal movements will also be of particular importance.
	In taking work forward on the report, we will need to involve stakeholders, in particular the farming industry, who have a share in the responsibility for maintaining the animal disease free status recommended by the report.
	We intend to give a fuller initial response on the recommendations in this report when the lessons learned inquiry has reported on Monday 22 July. It is also intended later in the year to issue a detailed reply to the recommendations in both these independent reports.

Special Educational Needs

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the exclusion figures for each local education authority, including the number of special educational needs pupils with and without statements who have been permanently excluded.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The latest information available is shown in the table.
	Figures for 2000–01 will be available shortly.
	
		Number of permanent exclusions by special educational needs in maintained primary and secondary schools and special schools in England -- Academic year 1999–2000
		
			 Excluded pupils: with statements of SEN without statements of SEN Total 
			 England 1,494 6,829 8,323 
			 North East 61 421 482 
			 Darlington 1 26 27 
			 Durham 19 95 114 
			 Gateshead 2 12 14 
			 Hartlepool 1 14 15 
			 Middlesbrough 1 2 3 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 7 66 73 
			 North Tyneside 6 44 50 
			 Northumberland 9 33 42 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 2 35 37 
			 South Tyneside 0 36 36 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 1 26 27 
			 Sunderland 12 32 44 
			 North West 181 1,133 1,314 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 3 37 40 
			 Blackpool 4 17 21 
			 Bolton 14 36 50 
			 Bury 5 34 39 
			 Cheshire 33 86 119 
			 Cumbria 4 35 39 
			 Halton 4 31 35 
			 Knowsley 1 5 6 
			 Lancashire 27 140 167 
			 Liverpool 12 163 175 
			 Manchester 15 99 114 
			 Oldham 0 51 51 
			 Rochdale 2 41 43 
			 Salford 8 69 77 
			 Sefton 5 51 56 
			 St Helens 4 24 28 
			 Stockport 9 42 51 
			 Tameside 4 37 41 
			 Trafford 4 26 30 
			 Warrington 4 28 32 
			 Wigan 9 44 53 
			 Wirral 10 37 47 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 169 650 819 
			 Barnsley 10 33 43 
			 Bradford 20 96 116 
			 Calderdale 2 9 11 
			 Doncaster 29 92 121 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 4 16 20 
			 Kingston Upon Hull, City of 3 27 30 
			 Kirklees 18 54 72 
			 Leeds 19 52 71 
			 North East Lincolnshire 1 37 38 
			 North Lincolnshire 8 31 39 
			 North Yorkshire 8 32 40 
			 Rotherham 12 20 32 
			 Sheffield 27 84 111 
			 Wakefield 7 52 59 
			 York 1 15 16 
			 East Midlands 118 578 696 
			 Derby 6 41 47 
			 Derbyshire 18 73 91 
			 Leicester 34 73 107 
			 Leicestershire 13 67 80 
			 Lincolnshire 22 85 107 
			 Northamptonshire 15 90 105 
			 Nottingham 5 50 55 
			 Nottinghamshire 5 97 102 
			 Rutland 0 2 2 
			 West Midlands 165 939 1,104 
			 Birmingham 22 252 274 
			 Coventry 14 81 95 
			 Dudley 7 32 39 
			 Herefordshire 2 25 27 
			 Sandwell 18 114 132 
			 Shropshire 7 16 23 
			 Solihull 9 28 37 
			 Staffordshire 16 83 99 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 17 43 60 
			 Telford and Wrekin 10 40 50 
			 Walsall 6 45 51 
			 Warwickshire 12 70 82 
			 Wolverhampton 1 25 26 
			 Worcestershire 24 85 109 
			 East of England 135 600 735 
			 Bedfordshire 11 45 56 
			 Cambridgeshire 0 20 20 
			 Essex 28 154 182 
			 Hertfordshire 33 142 175 
			 Luton 3 12 15 
			 Norfolk 26 58 84 
			 Peterborough 9 29 38 
			 Southend-on-Sea 4 25 29 
			 Suffolk 16 84 100 
			 Turrock 5 31 36 
			 London 244 1,045 1,289 
			 Inner London 99 417 516 
			 Camden 7 15 22 
			 City of London 0 1 1 
			 Hackney 8 23 31 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 5 16 21 
			 Haringey 10 15 25 
			 Islington 5 15 20 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 2 22 24 
			 Lambeth 12 19 31 
			 Lewisham 11 64 75 
			 Newham 8 25 33 
			 Southwark 6 63 69 
			 Tower Hamlets 6 25 31 
			 Wandsworth 16 78 94 
			 Westminster 3 36 39 
			 Outer London 145 628 773 
			 Barking and Dagenham 8 23 31 
			 Barnet 15 42 57 
			 Bexley 7 26 33 
			 Brent 6 51 57 
			 Bromley 9 19 28 
			 Croydon 14 73 87 
			 Ealing 1 26 27 
			 Enfield 6 67 73 
			 Greenwich 11 32 43 
			 Harrow 3 36 39 
			 Havering 3 31 34 
			 Hillingdon 7 40 47 
			 Hounslow 18 34 52 
			 Kingston upon Thames 2 14 16 
			 Merton 3 20 23 
			 Redbridge 4 25 29 
			 Richmond upon Thames 7 18 25 
			 Sutton 7 12 19 
			 Waltham Forest 14 39 53 
			 South East 256 995 1,251 
			 Bracknell Forest 7 22 29 
			 Brighton and Hove 9 36 45 
			 Buckinghamshire 17 46 63 
			 East Sussex 19 53 72 
			 Hampshire 24 157 181 
			 Isle of Wight 7 4 11 
			 Kent 53 200 253 
			 Medway 14 61 75 
			 Milton Keynes 2 33 35 
			 Oxfordshire 28 48 76 
			 Portsmouth 1 26 27 
			 Reading 5 30 35 
			 Slough 2 8 10 
			 Southampton 1 14 15 
			 Surrey 28 105 133 
			 West Berkshire 1 15 16 
			 West Sussex 28 103 131 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 3 22 25 
			 Wokingham 7 12 19 
			 South West 165 468 633 
			 Bath and North East  Somerset 6 20 26 
			 Bournemouth 2 5 7 
			 Bristol, City of 38 66 104 
			 Cornwall 18 40 58 
			 Devon 25 54 79 
			 Dorset 9 26 35 
			 Gloucestershire 11 80 91 
			 Isles of Scilly 0 0 0 
			 North Somerset 17 24 41 
			 Plymouth 4 19 23 
			 Poole 2 3 5 
			 Somerset 5 57 62 
			 South Gloucestershire 5 18 23 
			 Swindon 6 14 20 
			 Torbay 2 16 18 
			 Wiltshire 15 26 41 
		
	
	Source:
	Annual Schools' Census.

DPP Annual Report

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish his annual report.

Lord Goldsmith: I can confirm that I have today placed a copy of the annual report in the Library.

Pension Funds

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 26 June (WA 146), whether the proportion of all pension fund assets held in equities is significantly less than 100 per cent; and, if so, whether the statement to the House on 27 May (HL Deb, col. 1040) that "what happened on the stock market . . . has wiped one third or so off the value of pensions funds" was wrong and misleading; and
	What is their estimate of the average proportion of pension fund assets held in equities; and
	Whether they are aware of any pension fund which holds all of its assets in equities.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My statement on 27 May (HL Deb col. 1040) and subsequent Answer of 26 June (WA 146) were based on awareness that equity holdings vary between pension funds, dependent, for example, of the maturity of the fund and the investment policies being followed. But equity holdings are often substantial, ranging up to 100 per cent in some cases. Industry information on individual pension fund assets distributions can be found in the annual directory Pension Funds and their Advisers, published by AP Information Services. This includes details of 2,600 major occupational schemes. In the 2002 edition, a small minority of companies is listed in this publication as having a 100 per cent exposure to equities.
	It is estimated that, on average, between 70 and 75 per cent of all pension fund assets are invested in UK and overseas equities. This is based on industry data on pension fund asset distribution collected by Russell Mellon/CAPS, covering the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002. The market value of pension funds with a relatively high proportion of equity investments is more likely to follow stock market trends than the value of those with a lower proportion of equity holdings. The words used in my Answer on both 27 May and 26 June—"a third or so" and "the same general order"—were designed to offer a broad-brush assessment of the likely impact. They were clearly not intended to provide a precise quantitative estimate nor to imply that the effects of stock market falls on the value of some individual funds would equate to the impact on the value of pension funds generally.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the publication of the annual report for 2001 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was delayed; and whether they believe such delay prejudices effective scrutiny of the role and functions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and
	When the next annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is due to be published; and whether they anticipate any delay in the publication of the report.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has identified some problems with its information technology infrastructure. These problems are now being resolved but they have delayed the availability of recent performance data.
	The annual report was held back in the hope that the data would be ready to include. When this proved not to be possible, the decision was taken to go ahead and publish the annual report without the data. The data will be made available shortly on the HFEA's website.
	Apart from the annual report, effective scrutiny of the HFEA takes place in a number of ways, including the laying before Parliament of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report of the HFEA's annual accounts, and the authority's appearance before parliamentary committees.
	The HFEA intends to publish its next annual report in November 2002. No delay in the publication is envisaged.

NHS Estates Executive Agency

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When will they publish the annual report and accounts 2001–02 for the NHS Estates Executive Agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have received the report and copies have today been laid in accordance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

Special Advisers

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many special advisers work on a part-time basis (a) within each pay band and (b) in each department; and what are the average number of days worked per week in each case.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: There are six special advisers working on a part-time basis, of which one is unpaid. They are employed in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury. On the paybands of individual special advisers, the Government have already announced the introduction of a new pay system for special advisers from June 2001 based on individual job evaluation. An announcement on the special advisers pay system will be made when the process of evaluation is completed.

Charities and the Voluntary Sector

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit's review of the legal and regulatory framework of charities and the voluntary sector.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: This report will be published in due course.

Civil Service Fast Stream

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the 2002 Civil Service fast stream recruitment report.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The seventh annual Civil Service Fast Stream Report was today placed on the Cabinet Office website at www.faststream.gov.uk and in the Libraries of the House. It covers the year from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 and reports the results of fast stream competitions completed during that period and the developments that have taken place.
	The standard of entry to the fast stream development programme has remained consistently high and the report shows that the Civil Service has had increasing success in filling its vacancies. In addition, there has again been steady progress in broadening the diversity of fast stream recruits. Women and men were recruited in equal numbers and the proportions of those recruited from ethnic minority groups,those with disabilities and those attending universities other than Oxford and Cambridge have all increased.

Downing Street: Entertainment Budget

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 12 June (WA 35), what was the cost to the official entertainment budget of £72,790 at No 10 Downing Street in 2000–01 of receptions for:
	(a) teachers;
	(b) National Health Service workers;
	(c) the police;
	(d) members of the emergency services; and
	(e) victims of floods.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The entertainment budget for 2000–01 covered all official entertainment at Downing Street and Chequers, including the receptions listed. It is not our normal practice to breakdown the total cost of each individual reception.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has requested extra resources from them; on what occasions; and, in each case, what was their response.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Her Majesty's Government have received requests from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for extra funding on a number of different occasions.
	These occasions and the Government's response are listed in the table.
	
		
			 Date Request Response 
			 August 1999 The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission requested £200,000. The commission was advised that there were already sufficient funds within its budget to cover its request. 
			 October 1999 The commission requested the same £200,000 funding. It was advised that £178,000 had been ringfenced within its budget. 
			 January 2001 The commission bid for an additional £207,000 for the financial year 2000–01. The Government sought further information to be included in a revised bid. 
			 January 2001 The commission bid for an £398,250 increase for the financial year 2001–02. The Government sought further information to be included in a revised bid. 
			 August 2001 The commission bid for extra funds for its Bill of Rights consultation amounting to £456,200. The Government agreed funding of £357,200. 
			 October 2001 The commission requested £25,000 to undertake an independent evaluation of its effectiveness and a review of the organisational structure. The Government agreed to this request for funding subject to certain conditions. 
			 November 2001 A bid for £227,603 for the financial year 2001–02 was received from the commission. This subsumed the bid submitted in January 2001. However, the commission had since increased the amount of its bid. The Government agreed to funding of an additional £183,592. 
			 April 2002 The commission submitted a bid for further funding of £575,750 for the financial year 2002–03. This bid subsumed the bid received in January 2001 for the financial year 2001–02. The Government agreed additional funding of £443,250 in addition to the baseline funding of £750,000.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	(a) on which Bills the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has made written submissions since 1 March 1999;
	(b) how many amendments the commission proposed to each Bill; and
	(c) how many proposed amendments to each Bill were accepted by the Government.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: A full response to this Question could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. However, listed below are the Bills on which the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commisison has made written submissions:
	Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
	Terrorism Bill
	Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
	Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill
	Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
	Freedom of Information Bill
	Immigration and Asylum Bill
	Criminal Justice and Police Bill
	Disability Rights Bill

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's criticisms not being accepted in the main by the United Nations' Human Rights Committee when it considered the report on the United Kingdom at its meeting in Geneva in the autumn of 2001.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: In preparing for the UN Human Rights Committee's examination of the UK's Fifth Periodic Report the UK took into account the comments submitted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We are giving careful consideration to the concluding observations of the UN Human Rights Committee following the hearing and will take these into account during the preparation of our next periodic report. The UK takes its international obligations seriously and has an excellent record of co-operation with UN mechanisms. The UK welcomes scrutiny as part of its efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes, if any, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has requested to the job description of the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has responsibility for the appointment of the chief executive and also for the agreement of his or her terms and conditions. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not requested the commission to make any changes to the job description of the chief executive.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the concerns noted in the minutes of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on 10 December 2001 (paragraph 5.3.1) and 11 February 2002 (paragraph 4.1) about the level of detail included in correspondence by the Northern Ireland Office about the commission's finances.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is an independent public body. However, when making a bid for funding it is subject to the same constraints as all other public bodies. The Government are responsible and accountable for the correct use of public funds, and therefore require that all bids for funding are accompanied by a clear business case. If, when assessing bids, more detailed explanation is required, we will seek further information from the commission.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have received the report of Peter Hosking on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and whether they consider that the expenditure of £25,000 was justified.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can confirm to the noble Lord that the Government have received Peter Hosking's report on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
	As the work was initiated by the commission and conducted within its own budget, is is not for the Government to consider whether or not the expenditure was justified.

Early Years Education and Childcare

Lord Acton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes to ministerial responsibilities they will be making in relation to Sure Start, early years and childcare.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: the Chancellor announced yesterday a significant increase in the combined budget for childcare, early years and Sure Start, rising to £1.5 billion in 2005–06. This includes a more than doubling of investment in childcare by 2005–06, following an inter-departmental review of childcare co-ordinated by the Performance and Innovation Unit.
	The extra investment will support the expansion of childcare places across the country and the integration of good quality childcare with early years education, family support and health services through a network of children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas.
	In keeping with this new focus on integration, responsibility for early years education, childcare and Sure Start will be brought within one inter-departmental unit based within the Department for Education and Skills. The Chancellor announced yesterday the PSA target for the new unit, which will be shared by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions.
	This new inter-departmental unit will report to a new Minister for Sure Start, early years and childcare who will be jointly appointed to the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that our early years and childcare vision delivers on both our educational and employment objecitves. The Prime Minister has asked the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who led the inter-departmental review of childcare to take on this role.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, will report to a new cross-departmental ministerial group on Sure Start, early years and childcare. This group will be a sub-committee of MISC9, the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Children's Services. The focus on health has been vital to the Sure Start programmes already up and running. To ensure that this is maintained, the sub-committee will be chaired by the Minister for Public Health. The sub-committee's other members will include the Paymaster General and the Minister for Disabled People.
	The Secretary of State for Education and Skills will continue to speak on these issues in Cabinet. At junior ministerial level, the Minister for Disabled People will answer Questions in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister believes these new arrangements will ensure that an integrated approach is taken to the development and delivery of our early years and childcare vision.

Funding of Opposition Parties in the House of Lords

Lord Desai: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any increases in the public funding for Opposition parties in the House of Lords are planned.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to be able to announce that under the 2002 Spending Review the following increases in the public funding of Opposition parties in the House of Lords were agreed:
	
		
			  Current allocation (£) New allocation (£) Increase (£) 
			 Conservatives 227,597 390,555 162,903 
			 Liberal Democrats 68,278 195,000 126,722 
			 Cross-Bench Peers 20,992 35,000* 14,008* 
		
	
	* backdated to 1 April 2001. This is a full and final settlement, and the Government do not expect to be asked for further increases (other than the automatic annual RPI increase).

Parliamentary Website

Baroness Ludford: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Further to his written Answer on 19 November 2001 (WA122) regarding the parliamentary website, when he expects the redesigned website to be available.

Lord Tordoff: Subject to final security tests, the redesigned website will be made available on 23 July. The content management system associated with the redesign will allow staff to make further improvements in the future, so the site available on the 23rd should be viewed as the start of an ongoing process of development and improvement. Feedback on the site, using the newly provided feedback option, will be welcome.